The lawyer spoke about the second bankruptcy process of a foreign company in the history of the Russian Federation

The Moscow Arbitration Court is considering the second bankruptcy case of a foreign company in Russian practice, said Dmitry Yakushev, a representative of Andrey Gorodissky and Partners Law Office, at the conferences “Kommersant” “Criminal and subsidiary liability of management and owners-2023”. He did not specify the name of the company.

First case concerned Pandora Consulting. The bankruptcy procedure was introduced in 2022. As Mr. Yakushev explained, in fact, in this case, the company “from a foreign one actually had only an address.” Her business, according to the lawyer, was connected with Russia.

A new bankruptcy procedure has been launched against a company that has not been doing business in Russia since 2016. Previously, she “owned some shares, but everything was sold.” The company has foreign directors, foreign participants, it is registered in Cyprus. The applicant in the case is a “well-known large bank” which believes that the defendant has assets in Russia. “The situation, in fact, is unique in Russian practice, because the procedure was introduced not in relation to the company itself – it is still incorporated in the Republic of Cyprus, therefore, the Moscow court cannot introduce bankruptcy proceedings in relation to a foreign company,” explained Mr. Yakushev.

As a result, there are difficulties with the process in court. So, the company now actually has two representatives: one represents the company, the other – the bankruptcy estate. “Apparently, there will still be cross-border bankruptcy in Russia. In the future, judicial practice, I hope, will proceed from whether the company has a close relationship with the Russian Federation, then it will be possible to conduct such a procedure, ”the lawyer believes.

The defense plans to appeal the decision to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. According to Mr. Yakushev, it is inappropriate to introduce it in relation to the property mass, when “the existence of the property mass has not been proven by the creditor.”

Leonid Uvarchev